Back

[3/4] Ernesto Francisco, Jr. Vs. Ombudsman Aniano A. Desierto, et al.

[3/4] ERNESTO FRANCISCO, JR., Petitioner, versus OMBUDSMAN ANIANO A. DESIERTO, JOSEPH EJERCITO ESTRADA, MARIANO Z. VELARDE, FRANKLIN M. VELARDE, ROBERT C. NACIANCENO, REY DIVINO S. DAVAL-SANTOS, SOLEDAD S. MEDINA-CUE, PATRICK B. GATAN, LUIS V. MEDINA-CUE, SILVESTRE A. DE LEON, RAMON V. DUMAUAL, RUBEN A. DE OCAMPO, MARIANO A. BENEDICTO II, GREGORIO R. VIGILAR, LUIS JUAN L. VIRATA, CESAR E. A. VIRATA, MANUEL B. ZAMORA, JR., RONALDO B. ZAMORA, FRISCO F. SAN JUAN and ARSENIO B. YULO Respondents.

G.R. No. 154117 | 2009-10-02

Public respondent Ombudsman contends that in claiming that the subject properties were overpriced, petitioner failed to consider that the transactions were entered into by the State in the exercise of the power of eminent domain, which necessarily involves a derogation of a fundamental or private right of the people. Public respondent asserts that "[the] appraisal or assessment of the property subject of the taking is not based solely on the market value or zonal valuation made thereof by the Bureau of Internal Revenue (BIR)."[86]

Administrative Order No. 50, which petitioner believes should have been followed, provides the following...